Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20397736›Full record

ArticleDrug safety2010

Development safety update reports and proposals for effective and efficient risk communication.

Hisashi Urushihara, Koji Kawakami

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Drug safety, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Pharmacoepidemiology in Japan: medical databases and research achievements.Journal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences · 2015
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Hisashi UrushiharaDepartment of Pharmacoepidemiology, Graduate School of Medicine and Public Health, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Koji Kawakami

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The periodic safety reporting to regulatory authorities is globally harmonized for postmarketing medicinal products by the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) guidelines, and is being extended for investigational drugs. To facilitate effective safety risk communication regarding investigational drugs, and to reduce duplicate periodic reporting to the US and EU by sponsors during development programmes, standardized Development Safety Update Reports (DSURs) are to be implemented in the near future. In this current opinion article, after extensively reviewing the relevant report from the CIOMS VII Working Group and the ICH draft guideline regarding DSURs, we discuss an effective and efficient approach to its application. To ensure effective risk communication, we recommend that DSURs be made available to all the ethics committees and participating investigators around the world for the purpose of continuing review during ongoing clinical trials. Furthermore, in order to maintain the consistency and integrity of safety information throughout the life-cycle of a drug, we believe it would be substantially more prudent and efficient to start a single, integrated, life-cycle periodic safety report covering both development and postmarketing, as proposed by the CIOMS VII Working Group, rather than maintain separate DSURs and Periodic Safety Update Reports, which can overlap considerably in content. To this end, we believe that the international regulatory community should undertake the new initiative for integrated periodic reporting immediately.

Indexed as

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsCommunicationDrug ApprovalDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsDrugs, InvestigationalHumansProduct Surveillance, PostmarketingRisk AssessmentDrugs, Investigational

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.